W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2014

Re: willchan's thoughts on continuations, jumbo frames, etc after *only skimming* the threads

From: Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 07:50:48 -0700
Message-ID: <CABaLYCskS5=E8ZckGAhMCfSz2mgqoyxO8WUeMGdQmKkw9edW6A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>
Cc: Rob Trace <Rob.Trace@microsoft.com>, William Chan (ι™ˆζ™Ίζ˜Œ) <willchan@chromium.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 5:32 AM, Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>

> On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 2:47 AM, Rob Trace <Rob.Trace@microsoft.com>
> wrote:
>>  CONTINUATION is simpler than coding for some of the failure cases for
>> existing applications.
> I agree that unbounded headers are a compat issue - 16 bits is going to
> break some tail somewhere. So we need a continuation like mechanism.

Not quite:  You either "need a continuations-like mechanism", or you
increase the size to something sufficient.  If a 16MB header is still to
small, bump it even higher.  It seems self-evident to me that simply
increasing the size is the simplest approach.  It's easy to explain and
easy to implement.


> My first choice is to continue with h2-13 as is.
> My second choice would keep continuations but address some of the other
> issues
>  1] make frame sizes other than 14 bits configurable by an extension
>  2] get rid of the reference set based on the data, and require colon
> headers to be sent first and not in continuation
>  3] make hpack inside continuations stateless and allow them to
> multiplexed with other frames
> That does address the header hol blocker issues that current exist (though
> I don't think it is much of a practical problem which is why I am fine with
> proceeding without a change).
Received on Friday, 11 July 2014 14:51:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 March 2016 09:57:09 UTC